I think there is a difference between spending 120 dollars (not a whole lot of money for most westerners) on a service that is esoteric and obscure and being active in working on the cutting edge of innovation and scientific research for example - I could totally see sensors doing the former, the latter, not so much.
I think you're actually scratching at a problem which is how Gulenko's terminology is just bad. He says (in his book) "sensors have poor imagination" and then in many reports says that LSI-H actually has good imagination. I also told Gulenko I have good imagination, and mentioned how as a kid I had illustrated my own dreams, and he said my imagination is based on my direct experience, which by the way is mostly true, if you count dreams as direct experience, which he seems to. In his book he mostly describes the imagination of intuitives as being more innovative and causing change, as opposed to the imagination he spots is some sensors, which is more about past experience. But he uses the term 'imagination' interchangably in this case, which is a problem as the same word cannot denote two different concepts in a typology system.
We were looking over the feedback conclusions the other day with my girlfriend (she knows about socionics), and she pointed out how in @
hellohellohello's conclusion, Gulenko said the fact his dreams were based on his day to day experience rather than deep symbolism pointed to sensing, which confused her as others (such as myself) have more symbolic dreams and still got LSI/sensing. I said that I believed that Gulenko started by looking at the person first, and then gave them a type but that type didn't have to have every exact trait of others of that type - it fits the person rather than the general descriptions.
I think alot of people misunderstand G' approach but that said, but given that his use of terms is confusing and imprecise, I don't blame them entirely.